NYC LEOs can randomly stop people on the streets, ask them who they are and what their doing, and then search their persons and property without a warrant?

What happens if someone refuses to stop and talk? What happens if someone refuses to consent to a search? Does that become probable cause to cuff 'em and stuff 'em? Or are folk targeted who look less likely to be able to afford a lawyer?

It's really an honest question. I live in the free state of Louisiana. I can't imagine that happening anywhere here outside of (let's say) NOLA or Baton Rouge. And even there, the citizens would be in a uproar. All it would take is one news reporter to get stopped and all hell would break loose.

The article talks about how the stops are supposed to be "Random." But, are they random in same way as the TSA pad-downs are random? Are old ladies and crippled children stopped and risked for illegal substances or contraband?

__________________
"An essential element of a mature democracy is the ability to allow others the liberty to exercise a right that you may find distasteful." --LTB

"Government cannot deny its citizens a right on the off chance that right might be abused." --Unknown

Glad it worked out for you, but I was under the ass-umption that you couldn't use criminal history or prior arrests as PC, does that not work for reasonable suspicion?

You can't use a prior criminal conviction in court in general, but if you know a convicted child molester is hanging out at the kiddie pool by himself, that certainly becomes part of reasonable suspicion that some crime is about to happen.

_

__________________
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”Heraclitus

You can't use a prior criminal conviction in court in general, but if you know a convicted child molester is hanging out at the kiddie pool by himself, that certainly becomes part of reasonable suspicion that some crime is about to happen.

[QUOTE=seanmac45;18960452]Each Stop and Frisk conducted is examined by the Patrol Supervisor, the Desk Officer, the CO or XO, the DA's involved with the case, as well as a unit at 1 PP whose sole function is to review Stop and Frisk reports with an eye towards uncovering procedural errors and outright abuse. Glad to read that there is some restraint of what can only charitably be termed a problematic restriction of Constitutional rights of the individual by the state. In this case, it is like inmates in a prison being in charge of deciding if a corrections officer has been assaulted, etc. It simply is not believable.

So when you question the integrity of the people and the process, know that you are swiping at more than just the cop on the street. When and if I do so, I do so as is my right as a citizen. No function or functionary of govt. is beyond suspicion or criticism. It is the better part of good citizenship to hold in extreme skepticism the actions of both institutions and those who have a vested interest in those institutions.

We act within the boundaries delineated by;

The Constitution of the United States of America

The NYS Penal Law

The NYS Criminal Procedure Law

Case Law established by the NYS Supreme Court

Case Law established by the US Supreme Court.

Not at all impressed with NYC anything. I've been in and through NYC a good many times. Like anywhere else, it has its good and bad points. When it comes to policework, etc. it probably has its good and bad points. Hopefully there is more good than bad. Abuse of plainly stated and understood civil rights qualified by the excuse of police work is a glaring bad mark on a historically spotty record.

As to the sc, they've routinely gotten things wrong... that later were revisited and fixed. From Dred Scott to Heller, etc. lots of errors have been fixed. This is just an error that will have to be fixed.

If you are dissatisfied with the way we work, and the way the law is written take it up with them. It would appear that by the preceding brief post, that dissatisfaction was "taken up."

Have a good one, cousin brucie.Always do. Always do. Never have a bad day. You be sure and have some fun with yourself.

Terry stops are NOT random. Stop Question and Frisk forms are the way that NYPD documents them.

Police interaction with the public travels along a continuum. In the following examples, which are VERY simplistic, you will see how things start low and ramp up given the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes police / civilian interactions start at the first level and never move up. Sometimes the circumstances take the simplest of hello’s and advance them all the way to the top. Sometimes they start at the worst level. I am just trying to give you a feel for how it works.

At the very base is the COMMON LAW RIGHT OF INQUIRY. In simple terms, you (the police) can say "Hi, how are you" to anyone. They can answer or not as they see fit. This interaction gives the officer no right whatsoever to detain the subject. Think of it as two people passing each other on a public sidewalk at midday.

Next level is MERE SUSPICION. Something akin to this would be an officer walking/driving past an individual at night as he stands outside of a store. Here we can stop the individual, talk to him and ask what he is doing there. Depending on the conversation and many other factors it might be nothing at all or it can move up to the next level. “Officer, my girlfriend is inside picking up diapers for the baby.” Great, have nice night.

OR, upon the above question, the individual becomes nervous, his eyes are shifting all over the place, his answers are evasive or outright lies, and his body language just screams that he is going to rabbit. Time to see some ID. It seems like it’s time to move up to the next level.

The next level is REASONABLE SUSPICION. Now the officer is passing a car that is parked outside a check cashing location late at night as it is about to close. Two males are sitting in the car, the engine is running and there are multiple cigarette butts on the ground indicating they have been there a while. We are going to have a nice chat. You are going to explain who you are and what you are doing there. Your hands will be in plain view at all times, and you probably will be preemptively frisked for officer safety.

This will probably be done with backup around because I don’t like to fight fair. I believe in overwhelming numerical superiority and winning. If everything checks out you are free to go. If you both are armed and in possession of stocking masks it’s green baloney sandwiches and soap on a rope for you.

Probable Cause. Yup, that’s the big time. Our intrepid officer is walking past a bank in the late afternoon. It is bright, sunny and 90 degrees and he observes a male exit the bank wearing a ski mask, long trench coat, carrying a satchel, and oh, by the way there is a rigid line under that coat extending from the armpit to the mid-thigh indicating the presence of a long object. My front sight is on the center of your chest, you are issued some rather terse verbal commands and you either comply or die. Life’s tough, it’s tougher if you play stupid games.

Like I said, these are VERY simplistic examples. Interactions such as these occur on the streets hundreds of times a day. MOST don’t wind up in a collar. However, the process of the interaction, of being aware of what’s happening in your post or sector, of delving more deeply into situations that seem out of place or downright suspicious, that folks is police work. It’s what you pay us to do.

You WANT these interactions to take place and you WANT your police department out there doing the job. The drug dealer we collar might be the one trying to get your kid hooked. The burglar we catch in the act might be the one that was going to hit your house tomorrow. Otherwise we get the smart aleck cracks about hanging out at the donut shop.

Bad guys don’t walk the streets with name tags that say “ Jim Jones Crack Dealer”. Bad guys try very hard to blend in and go unnoticed, most of the time. Stop and Frisk, or Terry Stops are a valid investigative tool given to the police to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are based upon rock solid case law and are way more complex than my simple examples provided to you in this post.

Terry stops are an art. There are many nuances and many have lead to some outstanding collars. They are not RANDOM as the boob who wrote the article suggest. Time of day, type of location, the subjects attire, his behavior, his reactions to inquiries ALL go into the equation and it all has to be taken in, processed and acted upon by the officer in an appropriate manner, or else anything obtained will be lost as evidence in the court process.

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

NYPD is doing a great job suppressing crime. Chicago is not, and it is a shooting gallery.

Perhaps, it's time to ask who is doing the shooting, and how can they be stopped. It sounds like NYPD has found a way.

__________________
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”Heraclitus

__________________"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?

Exercising one's right to remain silent is also good for the soul, but bad for police revenue streams.

So your story right there basically states that you stopped someone and searched them solely because they have a record? And you're proud of that?

Best thing one can do when approached by police in any form is to just remain silent. No one ever has to talk to a cop. Ever. Some orders must be followed, such as license and registration in a traffic stop but no questions need to be answered ever. Some states have "stop and ID" laws (not mine) but even then you don't have to answer any questions. If people would just STFU and exercise their rights these sorts of profiling tactics would go away when they stop being successful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBO

Why do the dissenters never cite court rulings?

Just because one state employee rubber stamps the conduct of another state employee, doesn't make it correct. Besides, the dissenters very survival doesn't usually circle around knowing what rulings to cite to justify arrests that produce revenue streams. Dissenters don't have a personal interest in the outcome so why spend time digging thru case law? Cops get the rulings handed to them in memos at briefings so don't act like you're sitting there pouring through case law yourself.

Case law is case law. Emotion and personal opinion don't trump it, no matter how much emotive posturing /coloring is done.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

__________________"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?

Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

So your story right there basically states that you stopped someone and searched them solely because they have a record? And you're proud of that?
.

NO NO NO. There was much more to that stop and arrest than that, it's just that I am not in the business of discussing narcotics operations on open forums and educating whatever sundry users/dealers might be reading these threads.

Sorry to disappoint you.

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

A very verbose way of saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for admitting that.

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

Thanks but I won't spend 48 minutes of my life trying to see if you have a clue.

You've already proven that you don't.

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway

Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about.

__________________"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”

Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?

__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway